Show REGULATION Of FREIGHT RATES Important Opinion on Powers o of Interstate Commerce Commis Commission Commission sion and State Commissions MUST BE NO DISCRIMINATION DISCRIMINATED fur Saute SHIH fn Jut itt mill Mn 11 IH lie I C III I r l vIt May M 22 o ol freight rats ruton t In Is I I a complicated I question In 01 ing aId matters matter mati nf of r la I but bul It II Cyril n n It more mme m serious problem when hn two I Ih h fin on a prop prof nf r f the reasonableness f rates rater rv nf of r freight ret rat regulation have ha antl 1 hut m n nir nI ir cr I or r I inter latr a inflict of or authority a null IIri between ht wron tin the th Interstate tal te and nl one n or no m re of r Ih I Ii state the Ih of or rate l i uh u h a 1 ha hi do over fIr H a cant case rase a that Ihal recently WH wai w brought be befort betori fort tori the th interstate c don Ion It II wee wax that of r K K r t of if j Flu Sli tin the Southern Ex The Th T wm m are arc a null nah daltro nil per at Pnola In the th ordinary course ur ol of their buln they thy operate largely ir in inthe the Mate of Alabama shipping lish fth In Ir quantities from to Int ul ur of destination in that state tat by express Recently the th railroad ol ot Alabama AIb ma fixed an n 11 rate rats on fl flab ah ll from Mobile Ala to tn other points nb that wa was fur far below the th rate rat from to the Ih seine game point of or destination This Thin ratS rate the e pre company was a forced to t put In effect t although It against int It tt M l n nh h shippers h hy by raon a of nf hl hi his rate ral were 1 given an over 01 the th fish fth shippers fu of to pints with although In manY mn the dl n from aola to I points point of or wax was a less lens I then than from Mobile Mo Mobile bile The Southern Express company re fused to niche make the thi seine same rate rat from rr Pen ola to point points In to Alabama an ta II It 11 wa a required to make mak from Mobile Mobil its It t i fussi ullin In a nit n 1 Int It with the th Interstate re communion commission Th TIMo opinion In the th en M a au was Wa u handed down today I 00 It It II was wan pre jre pr Wired pared hy by Commissioner loner Hilan HAan and I Ithe the unanimous Judgment i r f the Ih em m rn mission It 11 Indicate clearly I arl 11 lit litof of If conflict I between the national nallon c r m in and an th the Mate at atton no ton In th the regulation nf of f freight and J 7 express rates rt anti and In that sense aenne n In Is I on 11 k of or the th mo meet t Important deci decIsIons lon render rendered ed II bv tv the th for month While the th raze rase directly III rth Involved may mav ma maybe be bf considered B a as Inconsequential rom porn the th principle enunciated by tv bythe h ht the t commission Is I nf or nn an 11 an as A It opens open at once nitS the Ill fitter ann whether the th national ot n the It stat t regulating authority I is r to In he h paramount In the fixing of or freight frel ht rates rate PO OK Of The commission tt II It 8 position In these th terms Upon general principles of enmity comity the th action of a state elate In rat rJ on tate state traffic must mut h he treated with all 11 due respect but this commission baa never felt teft Ce t Itself bound to 10 accept S rate as asa a aa a awry measure mure of or an n Interstate rte rats Without th the tate state corn com commission mission rates rat from Mobile Mobil this rom corn mission In the light of the record and Its Ita It own Investigations Investigation finds find Itself un unable unable Unable able to accept the Alabama rate rates an as ana a ft fair fir and anti reasonable basis baaI for tor fixing the defendants defendant rates rate to the same me points point from Pensacola The situation and nd the testimony are thoroughly thorough I In the opinion In that It would not ulois the record In t lie case until the defendant dant dent had made matte further efforts to con COh contest teet test the order of or the th Alabama com corn commission mission the Interstate commerce corn com commission m mission says RY RYThe The carriage of traffic by h a com corn common cornmon mon carrier for tor or one on community or one set el of or shippers nt at t leas I than It carries the same me traffic for a like distance end and under substantially similar transportation conditions for another nother community or another s set t of or shippers Is ii I not nOI only In contravention of ar funds funda fundamental fun mental right rl ht and nd Justice but Is ii I essen een essentially en Iniquitous If It such auch a discrimination d tion Is I practised by a common carrier as ae between communities or different setS of shippers within I he the Ih same ame state Mate tat and nd on traffic moving mon only within the state redrew redress red may m usually be had hat under tinder the state tat laws Iw On the other hand If It an en Interstate carrier Is guilty of or such a Q discrimination d with respect to Interstate traffic traI redress may be had under the act et to regulate com coat commerce melee merce lint But when a carrier as a In this thle else case serves nerves two communities similarly situated by hI hauling the th same Mm me traffic tinder under similar condition from tt m a J mt Int of or origin rl ln to tn IN I me state anti and also alro to th the HI s n na interstate of eons Ilona from rom an n r origin It II In ls I not altogether CUKr l that trtat existing legislation afford redress a a U dl as an between the Ih two points when hn resulting from froman an nn order by hy the th tate state commission Hut But nome annie om such uch power Is ii I lodged re under appropriate legis legislation legislation lation It is I evident that rate metre if Ir In pursuance of at ofa a a narrow or selfish Inh local I hey 11 may not only 1 hinder and end harp har and burden buten Interstate traffic tra anti and y t In Interests interests but mar ma ay If Jl r t hat coil In view vi take tram from tr m k ft I tat In mother another sIte mate a bun that natural naturI I 1 v belongs belong to In that point or In which It IH iii II entitled at least to I participate on nn the III lasts of or equal rates ral arid and equal opportunity Whatever hat ver may be hI the th explanation nether whether It rests rents re In the greater Mai lesi 11 ac Sc tietty and ad a ability of or the th n fishing Inter Interi i st ol ti at l n aoh or I whether It Is I a natural advantage belonging to that rr the It fact fd that Illat l urel eltra r has hit enjoyed a 1 Dusl flees n In the th distribution III nf of r fl flab h through than ha has h tilt I th Ih tiia tate state of Hy My a rend JUKI ment of the th tate rates aIM out I if r f Mobil M t whether so ti tender MC lOr not the pm 1 Im PC of or taking from rom Pen aiola lower lor state 11 missile barges what whal tIe II III Ulterior I zest eal al or Its It greater guetter Ir natural Hl Rt have hav given to t H It has ha roni II and Is t I now flOW nn tt on OC onOn onOn On In principle It Is I deer clear that a ur lr operating through two In or nr ettes It Is I but hul on one vehicle hl l if f ron ronAn m An and 1 11 lI moved b h It II h r rt I rettie ettie t Ial l or Interstate ought night when hn tl ti tia J a I nerd transportation arc arche at al alt atthe t the he h name am to lear bear Its ItA It proportion of ofin r f rII fI II I in ii rot at t of if f operation fr 1104 uhl t tM 00 1 M n fl t i lore lIe and no l less IMO x then than lt its Ih Ju Jut JUI JUIf t tin of f the of the th mr ar r lr Auty nv other nitter theory N I liv IIo Illogical and n ni t i sv 5 he be hut but ni n that vre we 1111 n M that thai the th P agrees h alit lIy protect pro I Interstate em nerie m us Ca well II ax ss the th carriers that nr ar 1 If gel 1 In t 11 oil I I n nv i Uv 11 v requiring that any ny state tat tr tri trim m n veil by hy such a carrier hall beat baa HI IM I It II IIIi Ii nt t of f the th I he opt cost t of r f r t I Ii fi id I 01 Its is II I proper profit toll if f a in ino Ii 11 I If t f o the Ih and that with a lIh ith m h an un I end nd In view It tt auth z this Ihl ini ta mission ton to fix minimum u t 1 at al least la l for fiat tu state tae traffic when hn n v f I t i II hv tar a 11 ncr engaged also In r t u ti n or ur that It ma to II that thit no n Ii ur t cl engaged n In th t I h I r tit I Im fain ii of r pai ent t M 11 I ir r rI i Ity I ty may at the thi tb mime an mt n v vi tnt tHI t trank at rates raten 1 that an a n v th Ii lat ate itei s exacted b by It II Par for cI 1 I 1 t i trl i a i rl of like Ilk I un rill r UK ii It II hi h hover ho hoover over n not lint t attempted an any n nn li 11 l 1 d ii la tion And whether gleb in an fl HoI ul 1 would l stood 1 the test teat nf of r rut by l to it tl Ii III court rt t under iIer 1 the ii I n fl HI a a II I I nt n 0 stanie and nii nd If II an U t a It I I II from the till 1 I 1 public poly policy are nn th tilt it nut ultimately be bt rn It I liv Iv the th Iii pow and IntI 0 t i I Inot 11 not n t profitably be dl eui d l h ti the Ih corn to In this proceeding |